A Sociological Analysis of Structural Racism in Student List Products


    Ozan Jaquette

    UCLA

    Karina Salazar

    University of Arizona

    ozanj.github.io/student_list_hsls/slides/student_list.html

      Introduction


        The market for college access


        A two-sided matching problem in which market allocates students to colleges (Hoxby, 1997; Hoxby, 2009)

        • Barriers to efficient market:
          • transportation costs; information costs
        • Students
          • Goal: want to attend college
          • Information problem: Don’t know where they will be admitted, how much it will cost
        • Colleges want to enroll students
          • Enrollment goals: academic profile; revenue; diversity; internal constituents
          • Information problem: Don’t know who/where the “good” students are, how to contact them

        Matchmaking

        • “Inquiries” (student as first contact)
        • Students send test scores or fill out inquiry form
        • The enrollment problem
          • Most colleges cannot survive/thrive solely from students who reach out on their own
          • Must find desirable prospects who can be convinced to apply/enroll

          Student lists products


          “Student list” products are a matchmaking intermediary that connects colleges to prospects

          • Third-party vendors obtain data and contact info about prospecs (e.g., Testing orgs, search engines)
          • Vendors sell contact information of prospects to colleges looking for students
            • Colleges choose prospect profiles by filtering on search filters (e.g., zip code, test score)

          Policy concerns about student list products

          • Problem with underlying products
            • Search filters incorporate “racialized inputs” (Norris, 2021) that systematically disadvantage underrepresented students of color
          • Problem with utilization of products
            • University administrators may choose combinations of search filters that result in racial exclusion

          Research questions

          1. What is relationship between search filters and racial composition of included vs excluded students?
          2. How do public universities use racialized search filters in concert with other search filters when purchasing student lists?
          3. What is observed racial composition of student list purchases that utilize racialized search filters in concert with other search filters?

            Research overview


            Research questions


            1. What is relationship between search filters and racial composition of included vs excluded students?
              • Reconstruct College Board student list product using nationally representative sample of 9th graders from 2009 (NCES High School Longitudinal Survey)
              • Simulate which students are included versus excluded when certain search filters are utilized

            1. How do public universities use racialized search filters in concert with other search filters when purchasing student lists?
              • Analyze 830 student lists purchased by 14 public universities, collected via public records requests

            1. What is observed racial composition of student list purchases that utilize racialized search filters in concert with other search filters?
              • Analyze targeted student list purchases, where we obtained both the order details and deidentified prospect-level data

              Background & Literature


                How student lists fit into recruiting undergraduates


                Prospects

                • Population of desirable potential students

                Leads

                • Prospects with contact info

                Inquiries

                • Prospects who have contacted the institution
                  • Institution as first contact (leads)
                  • Student as first contact

                Interventions along the funnel
                • Convert prospects to leads
                  • purchase student lists
                    • list-based lead generation
                    • based on direct mail model
                • Convert leads/inquiries to applicants
                  • Email, mail, targeted social media
                • Convert admits to enrolles
                  • Financial aid packages
                **The enrollment funnel**

                Enrollment Funnel

                Source: pngwing.com

                  Scholarship on recruiting from sociology


                  Enrollment funnel: prospects >> leads >> inquires >> applicants >> admits >> enrolled

                  • Most scholarship on enrollment management focuses on latter stages (admissions, financial aid)
                  • Body of research in sociology that analyzes recruiting “in the wild”

                  Recruiting from perspective of high school students (Holland, 2019)
                  • Underrepresented students sensitive to feeling “wanted” by colleges

                  Connections between high schools and colleges from organizational behavior perspective
                  • Off-campus recruiting visits indicate a network tie and enrollment priorities
                  • recruiting from perspective of private college (Stevens, 2007), private HS counselors (Khan, 2011)
                  • Recruiting visits by public research univs (e.g., Salazar, Jaquette, and Han, 2021; and Salazar, 2022)

                  Recruiting at open-access PSIs for adults (e.g., and Cottom, 2017; and Posecznick, 2017)
                  • For-profits have demand in Black/Latinx communities because traditional colleges ignore them

                  Scholarship assumes that recruiting is something done wholly done by individual colleges
                  • Third-party products and vendors structure recruiting behavior by colleges
                  • How do products incorporate structural inequality? How are they utilized by colleges?

                    College Board and ACT student list products


                    Sources of student list data

                    • Test takers (e.g., PSAT, SAT, AP), pre-test questionnaire (demographics, preferences)
                    • More recently, from college search engines (e.g., College Board Big Future)
                    • Students can opt in or out

                    What information does a list contain (College Board template)

                    • Contact, demographic, college preferences, limited academic achievement

                    Pricing
                    • Historically, price-per-prospect (e.g., $0.50 per name); now a subscription model

                    Buying lists: “search filters” control which prospects included in purchase

                    • Commonly used search filters (Link to ACT filters)
                      • e.g., HS GPA, test score range, gender, race, geography (e.g., state), enrollment probability
                    • Salazar, Jaquette, and Han (2022) categorizes College Board search filters into four buckets:
                      • Geographic
                      • Academic
                      • Demographic
                      • Student preferences

                      Filters used in 830 lists purchased by 14 public universities


                      plot of chunk orders-filters-combined

                        College Board lists and student outcomes


                        Howell, Hurwitz, Mabel et al. (2021)

                        plot of chunk cb-fig
                        also see: Smith, Howell, and Hurwitz (2022) for effect of university purchasing profile on college choice

                          Conceptual Framework


                            Sociology of race


                            Selection devices allocate individuals to categories based on input factors (Hirschman and Bosk, 2020)

                            • Standardized selection devices
                              • decisions based on mathematical function in which input values determine outcome value
                              • “actuarial” selection devices predict outcomes based on analysis of past cases
                            • Discretionary selection devices
                              • Decisions incorporate judgment of individual evaluators (e.g., holistic admissions)
                              • Student list products are discretionary selection devices

                            Standardized selection devices and racial inequality

                            • May reduce racial inequality if source of inequality is bias from individual decision-maker
                            • Do not reduce inequality due to structural racism (Bonilla-Silva, 1997)
                              • Structural racism is “systematic racial bias embedded in the ‘normal’ functions of laws and social relations,” whereby processes viewed as neutral or common-sense systematically disadvantage marginalized groups (Tiako, South, and Ray, 2021, p. 1143)

                            Discretionary selection devices and racial inequality
                            • Sensitive to individual bias from decision-makers and inputs related to race

                              Racialized inputs



                              Norris (2021)
                              • reconstructs inputs used by Moody’s city government credit rating algorithm
                              • Racialized inputs: “theoretically and empirically correlated with historical racial disadvantage” (p. 5)
                              • “colorblind” selection devices reproduce racial inequality by using seemingly neutral inputs that are systematically related to race because marginalized groups have been historically excluded from input

                              Geography inputs
                              • US racially segregated due to historic and current laws/policies/practices
                              • Zip code an input in algorithm that predicts crime recidivism (O’Neil, 2016; Benjamin, 2019)
                                • Zip code a search filter on CB/ACT student list products
                                • Ruffalo Noel Levitz algorithm recommends which zip codes to buy names
                              • Geodemographic classifications classify localities by consumer behavior (Leyshon and Thrift, 1999)
                                • CB Geodemographic filters classify census tracts by past college enrollment (College Board, 2011)

                              Inputs based on predictive analytics
                              • Analyze determinants of an outcome in past cases, use results as an input to select future cases (e.g., ACT “enrollment predictor” filter)

                                RQ1: relationship between filters and racial composition


                                Standardized college entrance exams and AP exams as racialized inputs

                                • Racial/ethnic differences in test-taking and test scores a function of historic/contemporary school segregation, differences in school funding, differences in access to curricula (e.g., Reardon, Kalogrides, and Shores, 2019; Rodriguez and Hernandez-Hamed, 2020)

                                P1: The condition of taking standardized assessments is associated with racial disparities in who is included versus excluded in student list products.


                                P2: As test score threshold increases, proportion of underrepresented minority students included in student lists declines relative to proportion who are excluded.


                                P3. As purchases filter on more affluent zip codes, the proportion of underrepresented minority students included in student lists declines relative to proportion excluded.


                                P4. Filtering on smaller geographic localities is associated with greater racial disparities in included vs. excluded than filtering on larger geographic localities.


                                Filtering on multiple racialized inputs has compounding effect on racial inequality

                                  Methods


                                    Data


                                      HSLS09 & Student List Project


                                      High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS09)

                                      • Nationally representative survey of 23,000 students from 944 schools entering 9th grade in Fall 2009
                                      • Follow up surveys: Spring 2012 (11th grade), 2013 (HS graduation/transcripts), 2016 (postsecondary)
                                      • Sample: Students who completed 2012/2013 survey follow-ups + HS transcripts
                                        • Unweighted: N=16,530
                                        • Weighted analysis sample: N=4.2 Million


                                      Student List Project

                                      • Issued public records requests for student list data (2016-2020) to all public universities in four states (CA, IL, MN, TX)
                                      • Target student list vendors: College Board, ACT
                                      • Data collected for each purchased list:
                                        • “Order summary” specifying search filter criteria (LINK)
                                        • De-identified prospect-level student list (LINK)
                                      • Funded by Joyce Foundation and Kresge Foundation

                                        Research design


                                          Variables & Analyses


                                          RQ1. What is relationship between search filters and racial composition of included vs excluded students?

                                          • Data: HSLS09
                                          • Dependent Variable: student race/ethnicity
                                          • Independent Variables: measures of student list academic and geographic filters
                                            • Dichotomous and score threshold measures of SAT, PSAT, AP (and GPA)
                                              • Note: HSLS measures for SAT includes ACT, and PSAT includes PreACT
                                            • Economic measures of students’ zipcode, county, CBSA from ACS
                                          • Analyses: inferential descriptive statistics (comparing two propoportions)
                                            • Racial composition of included vs excluded prospects when particular filters utilized

                                          RQ2. How do public universities use racialized search filters in concert with other search filters when purchasing student lists?

                                          • Data: order summaries from 830 College Board student lists purchased by 14 public universities
                                          • Analyses: descriptive statistics of search filters specified in orders

                                          RQ3. What is observed racial composition of student list purchases that utilize racialized search filters in concert with other search filters?

                                          • Data: de-identified prospect-level student list data; incorporate ACS data for comparisons
                                          • Analyses: descriptive statistics of targeted student list purchases

                                            Results


                                              RQ1


                                                Test Takers


                                                P1: Racial disparities in test-taking

                                                Enrollment Funnel
                                                Snow
                                                Forest
                                                Snow
                                                Forest

                                                  Test Thresholds


                                                  P2: SAT, PSAT score thresholds and racial composition

                                                  Enrollment Funnel
                                                  P2SAT_inc
                                                  P2SAT_exc
                                                  P2PSAT_inc
                                                  P2PSAT_exc

                                                    Test Thresholds


                                                    P2: AP score thresholds and racial composition

                                                    Enrollment Funnel
                                                    P2AP_inc
                                                    P2AP_exc
                                                    P2APstem_inc
                                                    P2APstem_exc

                                                      Geography


                                                      P3: Zip code affluence and racial composition, within CBSA

                                                      Enrollment Funnel
                                                      P3zip_inc
                                                      P3zip_exc

                                                        Geography


                                                        P4: Zip vs County, affluence percentiles within CBSA

                                                        Enrollment Funnel
                                                        P4zip_inc
                                                        P4zip_exc
                                                        P4county_inc
                                                        P4county_exc

                                                          Compounding Effects


                                                          GPA (3.0+) and SAT or PSAT (across score thresholds)

                                                          Enrollment Funnel
                                                          combo1_sat
                                                          combo1_psat

                                                            Compounding Effects


                                                            GPA (3.0+), PSAT (150+), SAT (1050+), and Zip (by income)

                                                            Enrollment Funnel
                                                            combo2_sat
                                                            combo2_psat

                                                              Compounding Effects


                                                              GPA (3.0+) and AP (across score thresholds)

                                                              Enrollment Funnel
                                                              combo3_ap
                                                              combo3_apstem

                                                                RQ2


                                                                  Broad patterns


                                                                  Filters used in order purchases

                                                                  plot of chunk orders-filters

                                                                    Combination of filters


                                                                    Filter combos used in order purchases

                                                                    ResearchMA/doctoral
                                                                    FiltersCountPercentFiltersCountPercent
                                                                    HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, Rank, State, Race 39 10% HS grad class, GPA, SAT, Zip code 206 45%
                                                                    HS grad class, PSAT, State 27 7% HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, Zip code 145 32%
                                                                    HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, State, Race 20 5% HS grad class, SAT, State 31 7%
                                                                    HS grad class, PSAT, State, Low SES 20 5% HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, Zip code 28 6%
                                                                    HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, State 17 5% HS grad class, GPA, SAT, State 7 2%
                                                                    HS grad class, GPA, SAT, State 16 4% HS grad class, SAT, Geomarket 6 1%
                                                                    HS grad class, GPA, AP score, Geomarket 15 4% HS grad class, GPA, SAT, County 5 1%
                                                                    HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, State, Segment, Gender 13 3% HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, County 4 1%
                                                                    HS grad class, PSAT, Geomarket 12 3% HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, State 2 0%
                                                                    HS grad class, SAT, State, Low SES, College size 11 3% HS grad class, SAT, Geomarket, College type 2 0%

                                                                      RQ3


                                                                        Characteristics by filters


                                                                        Prospect characteristics across individual filter criteria

                                                                        AcademicGeographicDemographic
                                                                        All domesticGPAPSATSATHS rankAP scoreZip codeStateGeomarketSegmentCBSARaceGender
                                                                        Total 3,547,620 1,101,266 1,812,447 971,237 146,660 75,479 165,924 1,173,678 1,056,951 186,519 146,313 279,626 39,546
                                                                        Location
                                                                        % In-state 38 62 30 54 83 42 98 48 17 15 4 59 6
                                                                        % Out-of-state 62 38 70 46 17 58 2 52 83 85 96 41 94
                                                                        Race/ethnicity
                                                                        % White 48 45 50 47 51 17 43 42 57 51 53 25 47
                                                                        % Asian 16 15 17 15 10 7 13 18 13 27 28 5 38
                                                                        % Black 5 7 4 7 8 17 8 5 4 3 2 11 1
                                                                        % Latinx 21 24 19 22 23 46 27 24 16 11 8 46 6
                                                                        % AI/AN 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0
                                                                        % NH/PI 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
                                                                        % Multiracial 5 5 5 5 5 10 4 6 5 5 5 9 5
                                                                        % Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
                                                                        % No response 4 3 3 3 2 1 4 3 4 3 3 2 3
                                                                        % Missing 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
                                                                        Gender
                                                                        % Male 34 19 37 18 0 3 46 24 48 6 0 11 0
                                                                        % Female 36 23 40 20 1 15 54 27 52 9 0 12 33
                                                                        % Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
                                                                        % Missing 30 58 22 63 99 82 0 49 0 85 1 77 67
                                                                        Household income
                                                                        Median income $107K $105K $108K $105K $99K $90K $97K $105K $107K $130K $135K $94K $127K
                                                                        Locale
                                                                        % City 27 27 27 26 26 31 31 30 23 24 22 29 26
                                                                        % Suburban 44 47 44 48 53 40 42 42 46 54 57 47 49
                                                                        % Rural - Fringe 22 20 22 20 15 23 19 22 23 19 19 19 23
                                                                        % Rural - Distant 6 6 5 6 6 5 7 6 6 2 1 6 2
                                                                        % Rural - Remote 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
                                                                        % Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

                                                                          Geodemographic segment filters


                                                                          Filter by neighborhood segments

                                                                          2011 D+ ClusterSAT MathSAT CRGoing Out of StatePercent NonWhiteNeed Financial AidMed Income
                                                                          51 546.00 533.00 32% 30% 57% $95,432
                                                                          52 480.00 470.00 30% 58% 71% $63,578
                                                                          53 561.00 544.00 32% 50% 55% $92,581
                                                                          54 458.00 443.00 25% 83% 76% $38,977
                                                                          55 566.00 565.00 52% 24% 63% $71,576
                                                                          56 420.00 411.00 29% 93% 66% $35,308
                                                                          57 541.00 519.00 52% 47% 43% $67,394
                                                                          58 533.00 489.00 28% 87% 69% $68,213
                                                                          59 561.00 562.00 52% 24% 74% $54,750
                                                                          60 589.00 590.00 63% 37% 36% $104,174
                                                                          61 585.00 567.00 51% 30% 40% $123,858
                                                                          62 596.00 595.00 67% 24% 72% $59,824
                                                                          63 548.00 541.00 39% 23% 65% $69,347
                                                                          64 466.00 466.00 48% 34% 29% $49,829
                                                                          65 440.00 433.00 23% 93% 78% $45,081
                                                                          66 499.00 492.00 20% 12% 76% $50,453
                                                                          67 519.00 501.00 27% 53% 59% $60,960
                                                                          68 552.00 558.00 52% 35% 65% $57,902
                                                                          69 534.00 521.00 37% 19% 65% $88,100
                                                                          70 613.00 598.00 65% 29% 61% $86,381
                                                                          71 405.00 408.00 39% 97% 68% $42,661
                                                                          72 399.00 397.00 31% 87% 47% $32,708
                                                                          73 528.00 514.00 29% 42% 62% $90,849
                                                                          74 433.00 435.00 29% 84% 79% $44,065
                                                                          75 459.00 457.00 28% 85% 72% $50,421
                                                                          76 514.00 509.00 27% 38% 64% $61,332
                                                                          77 502.00 492.00 26% 18% 75% $62,372
                                                                          78 594.00 578.00 56% 26% 39% $134,400
                                                                          79 550.00 551.00 57% 32% 74% $40,909
                                                                          80 534.00 527.00 39% 39% 65% $49,877
                                                                          81 491.00 483.00 27% 57% 72% $63,030
                                                                          82 496.00 491.00 29% 21% 75% $53,465
                                                                          83 500.00 490.00 19% 26% 71% $49,335
                                                                          Total 512.00 502.00 32% 43% 65% $70,231

                                                                            Filter by high school segments


                                                                            2011 D+ ClusterSAT MathSAT CRGoing Out of StatePercent NonWhiteNeed Financial AidMed Income
                                                                            51 462.00 457.00 14% 33% 68% $40,918
                                                                            52 489.00 496.00 81% 99% 77% $64,730
                                                                            53 471.00 484.00 28% 38% 62% $60,833
                                                                            54 376.00 371.00 33% 96% 38% $38,146
                                                                            55 489.00 481.00 39% 46% 44% $71,845
                                                                            56 536.00 508.00 73% 43% 49% $63,967
                                                                            57 434.00 435.00 29% 82% 79% $48,301
                                                                            58 592.00 577.00 51% 27% 32% $104,509
                                                                            59 499.00 489.00 19% 18% 74% $47,685
                                                                            60 523.00 549.00 23% 30% 33% $70,175
                                                                            61 485.00 370.00 33% 89% 9% $61,385
                                                                            62 474.00 473.00 34% 92% 67% $55,515
                                                                            63 440.00 427.00 28% 86% 72% $49,238
                                                                            64 606.00 542.00 37% 89% 57% $81,911
                                                                            65 515.00 503.00 28% 43% 65% $72,692
                                                                            66 498.00 515.00 37% 37% 73% $60,272
                                                                            67 526.00 546.00 48% 41% 69% $71,279
                                                                            68 541.00 540.00 41% 26% 62% $79,260
                                                                            69 390.00 395.00 36% 92% 74% $43,391
                                                                            70 595.00 581.00 56% 33% 48% $105,721
                                                                            71 400.00 412.00 57% 98% 80% $43,137
                                                                            72 528.00 544.00 35% 25% 64% $70,018
                                                                            73 451.00 438.00 24% 89% 76% $48,406
                                                                            74 654.00 579.00 76% 80% 46% $59,089
                                                                            75 514.00 502.00 31% 20% 71% $72,850
                                                                            76 600.00 584.00 72% 50% 28% $90,265
                                                                            77 595.00 508.00 64% 75% 39% $39,490
                                                                            78 473.00 468.00 48% 43% 22% $56,703
                                                                            79 594.00 585.00 61% 26% 71% $65,180
                                                                            Total 514.00 502.00 32% 44% 65% $70,223

                                                                              Segment filter prospects by metro


                                                                              plot of chunk uiuc-deep-dive

                                                                              Filters: HS Class, Segment, GPA (B-A+), PSAT/SAT (1220-1450); State/CBSAs

                                                                                Segment filter prospects interactive map



                                                                                “Basic tenet of geodemography is people with similar cultural backgrounds, means, and perspectives naturally gravitate to one another or form relatively homogeneous communities” (College Board, 2011)

                                                                                  Women in STEM


                                                                                  Women in STEM prospects by metro

                                                                                  plot of chunk ucsd-deep-dive

                                                                                  Filters: HS Class, AP STEM (3 min for in-state; 4 min for out-of-state) or SAT (1200 minimum for in-state; 1300 minimum for out-of-state) with STEM major interest, GPA (B-A+), State (in-state vs. out-of-state)

                                                                                    Targeting URM students


                                                                                    Race and ethnicity variables, aggregated vs. alone

                                                                                    plot of chunk poc-race-deep-dive

                                                                                    Filters: HS Class, SAT (1200-1380), GPA (B-A+), Race (Latinx, Black, AIAN), State

                                                                                      Purchased profiles for students of color by metro


                                                                                      plot of chunk poc-prospects-deep-dive

                                                                                        Purchased profiles for students of color interactive map


                                                                                          Zip code & test score filters


                                                                                          Los Angeles prospects from top income decile zip codes

                                                                                          plot of chunk asu-la-deep-dive

                                                                                          Filters: HS Class, PSAT (high/low) or SAT (high/low), Zip Code (by affluence)

                                                                                            Discussion


                                                                                              Future research on student list products


                                                                                              Improve this paper enough to get published

                                                                                              • How to motivate targeted analyses about how universities utilize student list products

                                                                                              Papers on College Board filters that create geographic borders from analyses of past college enrollment
                                                                                              • Geomarket filters slice metropolitan areas into several education markets
                                                                                              • Geodemography filters categorize neighborhoods and high schools into clusters

                                                                                              Explore link between student list products and extension of credit
                                                                                              • Parallel origins of consumer credit reports and student lists (Hoxby, 2009; Leyshon and Thrift, 1999)
                                                                                                • Reduce information assymetry by providing businesses information about customers
                                                                                                • Business model moves from evaluation of applicants to active courtship of desired customers
                                                                                              • Consumer credit reports regulated under Fair Credit Reporting Act and Consumer Finance Protection Act because they lead to extension of credit
                                                                                              • Student list products systematically lead to student loans

                                                                                              Regulatory policy
                                                                                              • Students list products are powerful tools, can be used for good or bad
                                                                                              • Should policymakers continue tolerating products likely to do harm because they also do good?

                                                                                                References


                                                                                                 

                                                                                                [1] R. Benjamin. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Medford, MA: Polity, 2019. ISBN: 9781509526390 (hardback) 9781509526406 (paperback).

                                                                                                [2] E. Bonilla-Silva. “Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation”. In: American Sociological Review 62.3 (1997), pp. 465-480. ISSN: 0003-1224. DOI: 10.2307/2657316. URL: <Go to ISI>://WOS:A1997XG45300007.

                                                                                                [3] College Board. Segment Analysis Service: An educationally relevant geodemographic tagging service. Tech. rep. College Board, 2011. URL: https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/mSSS/media/pdf/segment-analysis-service-overview.pdf.

                                                                                                [4] T. M. Cottom. Lower ed: The troubling rise of for-profit colleges in the new economy. New Press, The, 2017.

                                                                                                [5] R. Freedle. “Correcting the SAT's ethnic and social-class bias: A method for reestimating SAT scores”. In: Harvard Educational Review 73.1 (2003), pp. 1–43.

                                                                                                [6] D. Hirschman and E. A. Bosk. “Standardizing biases: Selection devices and the quantification of race”. In: Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 6.3 (2020), pp. 348-364. DOI: 10.1177/2332649219844797. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2332649219844797.

                                                                                                [7] M. M. Holland. Divergent paths to college: Race, class, and inequality in high schools. Rutgers University Press, 2019. DOI: 10.36019/9780813590288.

                                                                                                [8] J. Howell, M. H. Hurwitz, Z. Mabel, et al. Participation in student search service is associated with higher college enrollment and completion. Tech. rep. College Board, 2021. URL: https://cbsearch.collegeboard.org/pdf/college-outreach-and-student-outcomes.pdf.

                                                                                                [9] C. M. Hoxby. How the changing market structure of U.S. higher education explains college tuition. Tech. rep. Working Paper 6323. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1997. URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/W6323.pdf.

                                                                                                [10] C. M. Hoxby. “The changing selectivity of American colleges”. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 23.4 (2009), pp. 95-118. ISSN: 0895-3309. URL: <Go to ISI>://000272677100005.

                                                                                                [11] S. R. Khan. Privilege: The making of an adolescent elite at St. Paul's School. Princeton studies in cultural sociology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011, p. 232. ISBN: 9780691145280 (alk. paper) 0691145288 (alk. paper) 9780691156231 (pbk.) 0691156239 (pbk.).

                                                                                                [12] A. Leyshon and N. Thrift. “Lists come alive: electronic systems of knowledge and the rise of credit-scoring in retail banking”. In: Economy and Society 28.3 (1999), pp. 434-466. ISSN: 0308-5147. DOI: 10.1080/03085149900000013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149900000013.

                                                                                                [13] D. Norris. “Embedding racism: City government credit ratings and the institutionalization of race in markets”. In: Social Problems (2021). ISSN: 0037-7791. DOI: 10.1093/socpro/spab066. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spab066.

                                                                                                [14] C. O'Neil. Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. First edition.. New York: Crown, 2016, p. x, 259 pages. ISBN: 9780553418811 (hardcover) 9780553418835 (softcover).

                                                                                                [15] A. Posecznick. Selling hope and college merit, markets, and recruitment in an unranked school. Ithaca ; London: Cornell University Press, 2017. ISBN: 9781501707582 9781501709821. URL: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/52616.

                                                                                                [16] S. F. Reardon, D. Kalogrides, and K. Shores. “The geography of racial/ethnic test score gaps”. In: American Journal of Sociology 124.4 (2019), pp. 1164-1221. DOI: 10.1086/700678. URL: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/700678.

                                                                                                [17] A. Rodriguez and E. Hernandez-Hamed. “Understanding unfulfilled AP potential across the participation pipeline by race and income”. In: Teachers College Record 122.9 (2020), p. 38. ISSN: 0161-4681. URL: <Go to ISI>://WOS:000595649100009.

                                                                                                [18] K. G. Salazar. “Recruitment Redlining by Public Research Universities in the Los Angeles and Dallas Metropolitan Areas”. In: The Journal of Higher Education (2022), pp. 1–37. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2021.2004811. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.2004811.

                                                                                                [19] K. G. Salazar, O. Jaquette, and C. Han. “Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You? Off-Campus Recruiting by Public Research Universities”. In: American Educational Research Journal 58.6 (2021), pp. 1270-1314. DOI: 10.3102/00028312211001810. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00028312211001810.

                                                                                                [20] K. G. Salazar, O. Jaquette, and C. Han. Geodemographics of student list purchases: a first look. Tech. rep. Washington, DC: TICAS, 2022. URL: https://ticas.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Geodemographics-of-Student-List-Purchases_A-First-Look.pdf.

                                                                                                [21] M. V. Santelices and M. Wilson. “Unfair Treatment? the case of Freedle, the SAT, and the standardization approach to differential item functioning”. In: Harvard Educational Review 80.1 (2010), pp. 106–133.

                                                                                                [22] J. Smith, J. Howell, and M. Hurwitz. “The impact of college outreach on high schoolers’ college choices: Results from over one thousand natural experiments”. In: Education Finance and Policy 17.1 (2022), pp. 105-128. ISSN: 1557-3060. DOI: 10.1162/edfp_a_00334. URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00334.

                                                                                                [23] M. L. Stevens. Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, p. 308. ISBN: 9780674026735 (alk. paper) 067402673X (alk. paper).

                                                                                                [24] M. J. N. Tiako, E. South, and V. Ray. “Medical Schools as Racialized Organizations: A Primer”. In: Annals of Internal Medicine 174.8 (2021), pp. 1143-1144. DOI:

                                                                                                  Appendix


                                                                                                    RQ1


                                                                                                    Test Thresholds

                                                                                                    GPA

                                                                                                    Enrollment Funnel
                                                                                                    P2GPA_inc
                                                                                                    P2GPA_exc

                                                                                                      RQ2


                                                                                                        Data collection


                                                                                                        Summary of data received

                                                                                                        State# received order summary# no order summary# received list# no list# received both# did not receive both
                                                                                                        CA 9 23 13 19 9 23
                                                                                                        IL 9 3 9 3 8 4
                                                                                                        TX 15 20 16 19 10 25

                                                                                                          Orders and prospects purchased


                                                                                                          plot of chunk orders-prospects-purchased

                                                                                                              Academic filters


                                                                                                              GPA filter used

                                                                                                              plot of chunk orders-gpa

                                                                                                                SAT filter used


                                                                                                                plot of chunk orders-sat

                                                                                                                  PSAT filter used


                                                                                                                  plot of chunk orders-psat

                                                                                                                    Geographic filters


                                                                                                                    State filter used by research universities, out-of-state

                                                                                                                    plot of chunk orders-state-research-outofstate

                                                                                                                      State filter used by research universities, in-state


                                                                                                                      plot of chunk orders-state-research-instate

                                                                                                                        Demographic filters


                                                                                                                        Race filter

                                                                                                                        plot of chunk orders-race